From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:10:10 +0200 From: Ingo Oeser Subject: Re: Discussion on my OOM killer API Message-ID: <20001027191010.N18138@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from jas88@cam.ac.uk on Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:58:44AM +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: James Sutherland Cc: Rik van Riel , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:58:44AM +0100, James Sutherland wrote: > Which begs the question, where did the userspace OOM policy daemon go? It, > coupled with Rik's simple in-kernel last-ditch handler, should cover most > eventualities without the need for nasty kernel kludges. If I do the full blown variant of my patch: echo "my-kewl-oom-killer" >/proc/sys/vm/oom_handler will try to load the module with this name for a new one and uninstall the old one. The original idea was an simple "I install a module and lock it into memory" approach[1] for kernel hackers, which is _really_ easy to to and flexibility for nothing[2]. If the Rik and Linus prefer the user-accessable variant via /proc, I'll happily implement this. I just intended to solve a "religious" discussion via code instead of words ;-) Regards Ingo Oeser [1] http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~ioe/oom_kill_api.patch [2] That's why I called it "simpliest API ever" ;-) -- Feel the power of the penguin - run linux@your.pc :x -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/